recording_anyone got a good eye for estimating fps and resolution from a video?

[visitor]

you might need to launch and watch in yt app and have a fast net connection but this video. all of them pretty much on their channel,  yes editing is superb etc , but I'm blown away by the fps, resolution,  color saturation, everything.  this one is 4 yrs old so its.not exactly rare new tech
just need some estimates on what kind of rig can capture video of this quality,  I imagine its not just 4k,  but the frames per second rate has to be crazy high
I smell an SLR because of the way smart way it starts out of focus then clears. you need superb optics and adjustable lens for.that effect
The sound capture is great, has to be top notch external mics w good placement
really recommend their channel example after example.of jaw dropping gorgeous video and stupid good editing
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[perfect_pitch]

Looks like a 1080p camera, possibly SLR, but most of them record at 30fps, so that would be my guess.

The lighting and colour saturation is usually done by the camera. If it's a sh*t one, the colours look drab, but this obviously is a good quality camera.

[quantum]

You have been watching videos of Chopin's music?  

One does not really need 4k to get quality video.  Good technique and sensible equipment will do the job.  1080p is absolutely fine. You also need to consider if your viewer has 4k screens, or a suitable internet speed to view streaming 4k.  Also consider if you record in 4k, you have to deal with 4k file sizes and workflow.  

I put together a stage plot on what looks to be going on.



Cam 1: DSLR, telephoto, user operated during performance (Viewable at 1:16)
Cam 2: ENG camera?, wide angle (See the Busoni vid)
Cam 3: Camcorder, wide, remote operated / zoom in post
Cam 4: Action cam, wide, zoom in post, placed very near or inside rim of piano

On a single stand:
Rec 1: Lower on stand, Tascam DR-100 or similar
Rec 2: Higher on stand, Zoom H4n or similar

IMO, Cam 1 is very likely a 5DMkII, there are clues in the photographers Flickr stream.

There is a huge difference between 1080p on a phone and 1080p on a full frame camera, and that is sensor size.  It is that sensor size which is a major factor in the impression of greater quality.  Better dynamic range, contrast, color rendition, sharpness, plus the headroom to edit and adjust in post.  If you are shooting on a small sensor phone and the output is already noisy, there is not much room to be adjusting exposure in post before you get a mess of unflattering grain and artifacts.  

On a decent camcorder, and of course DSLR / mirrorless, you can adjust for white balance.  You know when colors look all wonky and white surfaces turn blue, or skin tones appear orange.  It is usually a matter of calibrating the white balance for the ambient light sources.  It takes a few seconds and will save you from headaches in post.  A lot of people blame it on the camera, but the user has the responsibility to set the calibration.  It is a simple thing that can make a video look "right."  In the present video, you can see there was a bit of a color temperature clash by a cool light source, but the videographer adjusted for the predominant ambient sources, so it all looks balanced (1:54 - see the reflections of the cool light source on the piano and on her hair).  

Lenses.  DSLR / mirrorless give you the option to changes lenses.   Yes they can get expensive, but you can get some quality vintage film lenses cheap and make good videos.  Autofocus lenses are not a requirement for video lenses, especially things like filming recitals.  

Depth of field.  In the 0:35 closeup shot, see how there are portions of the frame that are in-focus and the foreground and background elements are out of focus.  It looks polished, draws your eyes into a specific part of the frame, and generally stands out compared to cell phone shot video.  Depth of field is a big topic, but at the risk of oversimplifying: a camera with access to large aperture and sensor will make this effect more pronounced.  Do you need expensive gear to do this? No - a 50mm f/1.8 on an APS-C sensor will still have narrower depth of field than a typical phone.  

The multi-camera approach does add a sense of finish to the video.  It allows the viewer to experience various angles as well as focal lengths.  This video is done well, and it is easy to focus on the music and performer.  Some film makers get too overzealous with cine effects and make impressive looking videos that are distracting to watch for a music focused listener.  

I think the opening focus change (out of focus to in focus shot) was done in post, not in camera.  

As for fps, keep in mind as you raise your fps, you also raise the minimum shutter speed.  Raising your shutter speed means you get less light to the sensor. Using the exposure triangle, you would calculate proper exposure by adjusting ISO and aperture.  So there is a give and take.  Generally ideal shutter speed for natural movement is the reciprocal of 2x the fps. So for 30 fps, your ideal shutter is 1/60.

Phone cameras were mentioned a lot above.  I'm not knocking phone cameras, just a lot of people will be able to relate to one.  Good stuff can be done on consumer gear with the right techniques.  

[perfect_pitch]

Erm... yeah - what he said.

 

[Bob]

Is that the ideal place for the mic?

It always me when I start thinking of where the mic is (doesn't move) and then the camera moves.  The mic is picking up some of the room and blurring a little (I think).  If I were doing a recording myself, I'd do something like that or stick the mic in the audience (or get rid of the audience), but I'd focus on the recording and not the visual at all.  If they spent more effort with the videos... Is that mic in the correct spot too?

They almost spend too much attention on the visuals.  Now I'm noticing the camera moving around. 

My first thought was geez, you'd really have to watch what you're wearing, not a speck of dust on clothing, hair cut perfectly, hands/nails looking decent, etc.  The camera's picking all that up in more detail. 


Good to see better quality videos though. 

[quantum]

For the recorders used, IMO that is a very good place to put the mic.  Along the arc surrounding the open lid, with strings visible to the microphone.  Potential noise sources are kept a reasonable distance away. 

Mic in a live audience is not a good idea, people make noise.  Every little rustle of paper, movement of clothing, repositioning in one's chair, shoes on floors - all of this will be picked up by a mic.  It might seem insignificant in the concert venue, but when you bring the recorded files into post you have to deal with all of those sounds.  Consider that if you place the mic in the audience, the relative distance between the noise source is shorter than the distance to the intended sound sources (instruments).  Sure you could use a shotgun mic, but those are not the best choice for music recording.

[visitor]

You have been watching videos of Chopin's music?  

One does not really need 4k to get quality video.  Good technique and sensible equipment will do the job.  1080p is absolutely fine. You also need to consider if your viewer has 4k screens, or a suitable internet speed to view streaming 4k.  Also consider if you record in 4k, you have to deal with 4k file sizes and workflow.  

I put together a stage plot on what looks to be going on.



Cam 1: DSLR, telephoto, user operated during performance (Viewable at 1:16)
Cam 2: ENG camera?, wide angle (See the Busoni vid)
Cam 3: Camcorder, wide, remote operated / zoom in post
Cam 4: Action cam, wide, zoom in post, placed very near or inside rim of piano

On a single stand:
Rec 1: Lower on stand, Tascam DR-100 or similar
Rec 2: Higher on stand, Zoom H4n or similar

IMO, Cam 1 is very likely a 5DMkII, there are clues in the photographers Flickr stream.

There is a huge difference between 1080p on a phone and 1080p on a full frame camera, and that is sensor size.  It is that sensor size which is a major factor in the impression of greater quality.  Better dynamic range, contrast, color rendition, sharpness, plus the headroom to edit and adjust in post.  If you are shooting on a small sensor phone and the output is already noisy, there is not much room to be adjusting exposure in post before you get a mess of unflattering grain and artifacts.  

On a decent camcorder, and of course DSLR / mirrorless, you can adjust for white balance.  You know when colors look all wonky and white surfaces turn blue, or skin tones appear orange.  It is usually a matter of calibrating the white balance for the ambient light sources.  It takes a few seconds and will save you from headaches in post.  A lot of people blame it on the camera, but the user has the responsibility to set the calibration.  It is a simple thing that can make a video look "right."  In the present video, you can see there was a bit of a color temperature clash by a cool light source, but the videographer adjusted for the predominant ambient sources, so it all looks balanced (1:54 - see the reflections of the cool light source on the piano and on her hair).  

Lenses.  DSLR / mirrorless give you the option to changes lenses.   Yes they can get expensive, but you can get some quality vintage film lenses cheap and make good videos.  Autofocus lenses are not a requirement for video lenses, especially things like filming recitals.  

Depth of field.  In the 0:35 closeup shot, see how there are portions of the frame that are in-focus and the foreground and background elements are out of focus.  It looks polished, draws your eyes into a specific part of the frame, and generally stands out compared to cell phone shot video.  Depth of field is a big topic, but at the risk of oversimplifying: a camera with access to large aperture and sensor will make this effect more pronounced.  Do you need expensive gear to do this? No - a 50mm f/1.8 on an APS-C sensor will still have narrower depth of field than a typical phone.  

The multi-camera approach does add a sense of finish to the video.  It allows the viewer to experience various angles as well as focal lengths.  This video is done well, and it is easy to focus on the music and performer.  Some film makers get too overzealous with cine effects and make impressive looking videos that are distracting to watch for a music focused listener.  

I think the opening focus change (out of focus to in focus shot) was done in post, not in camera.  

As for fps, keep in mind as you raise your fps, you also raise the minimum shutter speed.  Raising your shutter speed means you get less light to the sensor. Using the exposure triangle, you would calculate proper exposure by adjusting ISO and aperture.  So there is a give and take.  Generally ideal shutter speed for natural movement is the reciprocal of 2x the fps. So for 30 fps, your ideal shutter is 1/60.

Phone cameras were mentioned a lot above.  I'm not knocking phone cameras, just a lot of people will be able to relate to one.  Good stuff can be done on consumer gear with the right techniques.  

lol I actually found the channel via a. awesome Beethoven Bagatelle upload and that Chopin was a suggested video I saw the views and comments on it way higher than .most of the other videos so I figured .something was up....
many sincere thanks for the insight , yes I see has to be  combination of high res, fps ,sensor , optics, but either way they consistently put out slick incredibly done videos
AMD the info you provide gives insight in how to construct such an upload.
I'll keep researching and maybe PM you w follow up questions in  future .
:-)

[visitor]

ok there has to be a 4k camera or a high fps 1080p or high fps w 4k at play here and video after video i come across, the difference is immediately visible to my  untrained eye, no noise artifact, no grainy, just smooth high res, and this is a single shot single camera all from same position but onmy end this is showing as a high quality video, ie it's smooth and the refresh rate and resolution are crazy good. Just trying to figure out what type of rig would produce this quality generally.

this is quality i usually only see w vimeo hd stuff (which has the best coding in think for hd play back vs youtube but yt seems to be getting better)

[Bob]

I agree it looks different/better (except for the performer's weight.... Something with her pressing instead of dropping is making me cringe a bit).

Maybe something here?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-way-to-know-fps-of-a-YouTube-video-fps-frames-per-second


Yeah... Right click, "stats for nerds."

Video ID / sCPNfzdwhBsdlHY / PYMA SRS0 XMBE
Viewport640x360*1.5625
Current / Optimal Res1920x1080@30 / 1920x1080@30
Volume / Normalized100% / 100% (content loudness -8.1dB)
Codecsvp9 (248) / opus (251)
Host
Dropped Frames


I had to manually switch it to the highest resolution, but it's this.
1920x1080@30
So 30fps?  I wonder what other videos are if this is 30.  I thought it would have been 60 or more.

And then there's dropped frames if that impacts how it looks.

I see "stats for nerds" can update while the video runs too.

[Bob]

That first video (I had to click on the highest resolution) gave me this.
Current / Optimal Res1920x1080@30 / 1280x720@30

[Bob]

Everything I'm looking at on youtube is 30fps.  I'm not seeing a way to change that.

[visitor]

that helps thanks
then as quantum indicated w basic stats and compression being equal it has to be at least in some cases a sensor side and processing ie high quality SLR or similar w good optics big sensor led I've see that before ie lower resolution but bigger sensor produce better results but not maybe lighting too so as to reduce noise artifact etc
warrants more research thanks for that Bob
hoping quantum can add more to the discussion again

[Bob]

We're only viewing through youtube.  Who knows what the original source was or what they fed into youtube?

Or maybe it's the other stuff on there and crappy videos in general.  I'm thinking of what I see youtube more often.  TV broadcasts... from someone.  Who knows how they transfered it.  Anything impromptu is probably going to be from a smartphone. 


Or maybe there's something like jpeg *process* or making a copy of a copy and lowering the quality.  If the original source started higher, it comes out less but looking a lot better than a crappy source getting even crappier through the youtube video process.  I would think youtube is standardizing or doing something to the videos if they're all at 30fps.  I remember something about the pitch being slightly off on their videos but that was many years ago now.

[perfect_pitch]

I would think youtube is standardizing or doing something to the videos if they're all at 30fps.  I remember something about the pitch being slightly off on their videos but that was many years ago now.

Nah - YouTube has been able to deal with a great many videos with differing fps for years. If you upload at 25fps, it shows at 25fps. You do 24, 48, 50 or 60 - it also stays the same.

Even before they did allow differing fps with videos, they used to use a process of filling in videos with empty frames to fill up whatever wasn't 30fps. They wouldn't have altered the audio in anyway.